Latest Workplace Injury and Fatality Numbers From The BLS
Published February 20, 2012
The following are the latest, updated numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Nonfatal injuries and illnesses, private industry in 2010
Total recordable cases: 3,063,400
Cases involving days away from work: 933,200
Cases involving sprains, strains, tears: 370,130
Cases involving injuries to the back: 185,270
Cases involving falls: 208,470
Fatal work-related injuries in 2010 (preliminary):
Total fatal injuries (all sectors): 4,547
Total fatal injuries (private industry): 4,070
Highway incidents (private industry): 837
Falls (private industry): 598
Homicides (private industry): 423
Safety - Hazard Control Measures
Use a Job Hazard Analysis to identify safety hazards associate with a job. However, the information obtained from a job hazard analysis is useless unless hazard control measures recommended in the analysis are incorporated into the tasks. Managers should recognize that not all hazard controls are equal. Some are more effective than others at reducing the risk.
The order of precedence and effectiveness of hazard control is the following:
1. Engineering controls include the following:
• Elimination/minimization of the hazard—Designing the facility, equipment, or process to remove the hazard, or substituting processes, equipment, materials, or other factors to lessen the hazard;
• Enclosure of the hazard using enclosed cabs, enclosures for noisy equipment, or other means;
• Isolation of the hazard with interlocks, machine guards, blast shields, welding curtains, or other means; and
• Removal or redirection of the hazard such as with local and exhaust ventilation.
2. Administrative controls include the following:
• Written operating procedures, work permits, and safe work practices;
• Exposure time limitations (used most commonly to control temperature extremes and ergonomic hazards);
• Monitoring the use of highly hazardous materials;
• Alarms, signs, and warnings;
• Buddy system; and
• Training.
3. Personal Protective Equipment—such as respirators, hearing protection, protective clothing, safety glasses, and hardhats—is acceptable as a control method in the following circumstances:
• When engineering controls are not feasible or do not totally eliminate the hazard;
• While engineering controls are being developed;
• When safe work practices do not provide sufficient additional protection; and
• During emergencies when engineering controls may not be feasible.
Use of one hazard control method over another higher in the control precedence may be appropriate for providing interim protection until the hazard is abated permanently. In reality, if the hazard cannot be eliminated entirely, the adopted control measures will likely be a combination of all three items instituted simultaneously.
Related Past Posts:
Free Online Safety Training
Avoiding Combustible Dust Explosions
What Are People Asking OSHA?
Nonfatal injuries and illnesses, private industry in 2010
Total recordable cases: 3,063,400
Cases involving days away from work: 933,200
Cases involving sprains, strains, tears: 370,130
Cases involving injuries to the back: 185,270
Cases involving falls: 208,470
Fatal work-related injuries in 2010 (preliminary):
Total fatal injuries (all sectors): 4,547
Total fatal injuries (private industry): 4,070
Highway incidents (private industry): 837
Falls (private industry): 598
Homicides (private industry): 423
Safety - Hazard Control Measures
Use a Job Hazard Analysis to identify safety hazards associate with a job. However, the information obtained from a job hazard analysis is useless unless hazard control measures recommended in the analysis are incorporated into the tasks. Managers should recognize that not all hazard controls are equal. Some are more effective than others at reducing the risk.
The order of precedence and effectiveness of hazard control is the following:
1. Engineering controls include the following:
• Elimination/minimization of the hazard—Designing the facility, equipment, or process to remove the hazard, or substituting processes, equipment, materials, or other factors to lessen the hazard;
• Enclosure of the hazard using enclosed cabs, enclosures for noisy equipment, or other means;
• Isolation of the hazard with interlocks, machine guards, blast shields, welding curtains, or other means; and
• Removal or redirection of the hazard such as with local and exhaust ventilation.
2. Administrative controls include the following:
• Written operating procedures, work permits, and safe work practices;
• Exposure time limitations (used most commonly to control temperature extremes and ergonomic hazards);
• Monitoring the use of highly hazardous materials;
• Alarms, signs, and warnings;
• Buddy system; and
• Training.
3. Personal Protective Equipment—such as respirators, hearing protection, protective clothing, safety glasses, and hardhats—is acceptable as a control method in the following circumstances:
• When engineering controls are not feasible or do not totally eliminate the hazard;
• While engineering controls are being developed;
• When safe work practices do not provide sufficient additional protection; and
• During emergencies when engineering controls may not be feasible.
Use of one hazard control method over another higher in the control precedence may be appropriate for providing interim protection until the hazard is abated permanently. In reality, if the hazard cannot be eliminated entirely, the adopted control measures will likely be a combination of all three items instituted simultaneously.
Related Past Posts:
Free Online Safety Training
Avoiding Combustible Dust Explosions
What Are People Asking OSHA?
Cal/OSHA Fines Renewable Fuel Firms More Than $500,000
Published February 13, 2012
Cal/OSHA has fined Realm Catalyst Inc., Rainbow of Hope Foundation, and Strategic Sciences Inc. a total of $540,890 as the result of a violent explosion at the company's Sylmar facility. The companies are working on alternative fuel technologies using hydrogen. This was the second explosion at the facility. In June 2010 an explosion killed the son of one of the owners.
A story in the Los Angeles Daily News reports on the accidents and some of the background of the companies involved. The article reports:
"State industrial safety regulators blamed the explosion on three intertwined companies linked to a suspected New York con artist and a San Fernando Valley attorney whose company's alternative energy experiments killed one son and seriously injured another. Realm Catalyst was owned by Timothy A. Larson, a lawyer based in Mission Hills, and father of Timothy B. Larson who lost an arm and a leg in the explosion last summer."
The Ventura County Star reports that this is the third explosion involving businesses owned by Timothy A. Larson. They also reported the following on the circumstances that resulted in the citation:
"The citation reports from Cal-OSHA included findings that employers failed to correct hazardous conditions identified in prior explosions and did not ensure ignition sources were eliminated from the work area despite gas manufacturing and storage that 'could reasonably be expected to give rise to explosive environments.' The employers also failed to develop a written communication plan for the use of flammable gasses, failed to protect employees from explosion hazards, and stored oxygen and hydrogen together despite prior knowledge that the pressurized gasses were 'incompatible,' Cal-OSHA says."
You can read one of the original news reports about the 2011 explosion here.
A story in the Los Angeles Daily News reports on the accidents and some of the background of the companies involved. The article reports:
"State industrial safety regulators blamed the explosion on three intertwined companies linked to a suspected New York con artist and a San Fernando Valley attorney whose company's alternative energy experiments killed one son and seriously injured another. Realm Catalyst was owned by Timothy A. Larson, a lawyer based in Mission Hills, and father of Timothy B. Larson who lost an arm and a leg in the explosion last summer."
The Ventura County Star reports that this is the third explosion involving businesses owned by Timothy A. Larson. They also reported the following on the circumstances that resulted in the citation:
"The citation reports from Cal-OSHA included findings that employers failed to correct hazardous conditions identified in prior explosions and did not ensure ignition sources were eliminated from the work area despite gas manufacturing and storage that 'could reasonably be expected to give rise to explosive environments.' The employers also failed to develop a written communication plan for the use of flammable gasses, failed to protect employees from explosion hazards, and stored oxygen and hydrogen together despite prior knowledge that the pressurized gasses were 'incompatible,' Cal-OSHA says."
You can read one of the original news reports about the 2011 explosion here.
Cal/OSHA Fines Renewable Fuel Firms More Than $500,000
Published February 13, 2012
Cal/OSHA has fined Realm Catalyst Inc., Rainbow of Hope Foundation, and Strategic Sciences Inc. a total of $540,890 as the result of a violent explosion at the company's Sylmar facility. The companies are working on alternative fuel technologies using hydrogen. This was the second explosion at the facility. In June 2010 an explosion killed the son of one of the owners.
A story in the Los Angeles Daily News reports on the accidents and some of the background of the companies involved. The article reports:
"State industrial safety regulators blamed the explosion on three intertwined companies linked to a suspected New York con artist and a San Fernando Valley attorney whose company's alternative energy experiments killed one son and seriously injured another. Realm Catalyst was owned by Timothy A. Larson, a lawyer based in Mission Hills, and father of Timothy B. Larson who lost an arm and a leg in the explosion last summer."
The Ventura County Star reports that this is the third explosion involving businesses owned by Timothy A. Larson. They also reported the following on the circumstances that resulted in the citation:
"The citation reports from Cal-OSHA included findings that employers failed to correct hazardous conditions identified in prior explosions and did not ensure ignition sources were eliminated from the work area despite gas manufacturing and storage that 'could reasonably be expected to give rise to explosive environments.' The employers also failed to develop a written communication plan for the use of flammable gasses, failed to protect employees from explosion hazards, and stored oxygen and hydrogen together despite prior knowledge that the pressurized gasses were 'incompatible,' Cal-OSHA says."
You can read one of the original news reports about the 2011 explosion here.
A story in the Los Angeles Daily News reports on the accidents and some of the background of the companies involved. The article reports:
"State industrial safety regulators blamed the explosion on three intertwined companies linked to a suspected New York con artist and a San Fernando Valley attorney whose company's alternative energy experiments killed one son and seriously injured another. Realm Catalyst was owned by Timothy A. Larson, a lawyer based in Mission Hills, and father of Timothy B. Larson who lost an arm and a leg in the explosion last summer."
The Ventura County Star reports that this is the third explosion involving businesses owned by Timothy A. Larson. They also reported the following on the circumstances that resulted in the citation:
"The citation reports from Cal-OSHA included findings that employers failed to correct hazardous conditions identified in prior explosions and did not ensure ignition sources were eliminated from the work area despite gas manufacturing and storage that 'could reasonably be expected to give rise to explosive environments.' The employers also failed to develop a written communication plan for the use of flammable gasses, failed to protect employees from explosion hazards, and stored oxygen and hydrogen together despite prior knowledge that the pressurized gasses were 'incompatible,' Cal-OSHA says."
You can read one of the original news reports about the 2011 explosion here.
RAND Study Finds That Citations and Fines Improve Safety
Published February 6, 2012
The first-ever evaluation of the California Injury and Illness Prevention Program found evidence that the program reduces workplace injuries, but only at businesses that had been cited for not addressing the regulation's more-specific safety mandates.
"We found the safety effects to be real, but not very large," said John Mendeloff, lead author of the study and a senior public policy researcher for RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "We think that the most important reason for the limited impact of this program is that inspectors often did not go beyond a review of the employer's written document."
When California Division of Occupational Safety and Health inspectors did investigate further and found failures to comply with provisions to train workers, identify and abate hazards, and investigate injury causes, the average injury rates at targeted businesses declined more than 20 percent in the following two years, Mendeloff said.
However, these provisions were cited in only about 5 percent of Cal-OSHA inspections, RAND researchers found. In the other 20 percent of inspections where a violation of the rule was cited, it was only for the section requiring the employer have a written program. Such a violation carries an average penalty of $150.
The California Injury and Illness Prevention Program, which became effective in 1991, requires all employers to adopt certain procedures. These include communicating to employees about risks, carrying out regular workplace surveys and abating the hazards that are found, training employees about how to work safely, and investigating the causes of the injuries that occur. In contrast, almost all other safety standards address specific hazards—for example, those dealing with protection against falls.
The program has been the most frequently violated Cal-OSHA standard in every year since 1991, being cited in about 25 percent of all inspections. The California program is also one possible model for federal OSHA's current rule-making effort to develop a safety and health program rule.
The RAND study notes that higher penalties for noncompliance with the program and more extensive activities to make employers aware of their obligations could enhance compliance. However, two other approaches could have a greater impact: having inspectors conduct more in-depth assessments of employer programs and having inspectors link the violations they find and the injuries that have occurred to the program by asking "Why weren't these prevented by your Injury and Illness Prevention Program?"
The study found that employers who were cited for violations of the Injury and Illness Prevention Program in one inspection usually came into compliance in future inspections. However, the overall percentage of inspections finding program violations did not change over time.
Moreover, the percentage of first-time inspections finding violations was the same in 2007 as it was in 1993. These findings indicate that information about the program requirements failed to reach many employers, they failed to be convinced to comply by the threat of penalties, or both.
The 20 percent reduction in injuries following citations for the specific requirements of the California Injury and Illness Prevention Program translates to about 1 injury per year at a workplace with 100 employees. Most estimates of the value of preventing a work injury are in the range of $15,000 to $50,000. The RAND study did not find evidence that the statewide workplace fatality rate had decreased after the introduction of the program standard.
The study of injury effects was carried out using several different injury data sets. In all cases, inspections were included in the data if "before and after" injury rates could be obtained for the inspected business. The study was limited to workplaces in the manufacturing, transportation, utilities, wholesale trade and health care sectors. It included inspections through 2006.
The study, "An Evaluation of the California Injury and Illness Prevention Program," can be found at www.rand.org. Other authors of the study include Amelia Haviland and Regan Main of RAND, Wayne B. Gray of Clark University and the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Jing Xia formerly of RAND.
The study was sponsored by the California Commission for Health, Safety and Workers' Compensation, a public body with management, labor and public representatives located in the state's Department of Industrial Relations.
The study was conducted within the RAND Center for Health and Safety in the Workplace, a research center within RAND Law, Business and Regulation. RAND Law, Business and Regulation, a division of the RAND Corporation, is dedicated to improving policy and decision making in civil justice, corporate ethics and governance and business regulation.
Rooftoppers and The Toronto Star
Published February 1, 2012Early yesterday morning I was sitting at my kitchen table reading The Toronto Star as per my daily habit. Unlike most days, however, the front page was notlittered with the usual murder trial, hockey star or international crisis. Instead it was a picture of a young man dangling from high a top a skyscraper. Rooftopping in Toronto the headline read and the article went on to tell the exploits of photographers who take great risks to take pictures from dangerously high buildings with no safety systems in place.
Now, I am a lover of art – and usually anytime a major newspaper takes an interest in the arts I am the first one applauding, but I cannot say that I felt even remotely good about this story. This story had my stomach in knots.
You see, all week long I go out and tell students and employees alike that no risk is worth their life. I tell horrific stories and show gruesome pictures of people injured at work and I try to raise the profile of workplace safety in our culture.
This is not an easy task. To begin with, most young people think they are invincible; and truth be told many “mature” workers also have a certain degree of bravado that makes them vulnerable to workplace accidents. So, everyday I am debunking the myth that safety is a topic for wimps and green thumbs.
And unfortunately, it is news articles like these - glorifying risk - that make my job even more difficult.
Throughout our culture, there are all kinds of jobs that are risky. Mining, for instance, is a high-risk industry – this does not mean however that those in this industry just throw all precaution to the wind because “there’s gold somewhere in there”. No, instead we expect them to take every step necessary to ensure that this is safest possible industry. My problem with The Toronto Star highlighting these pictures is not that “rooftopping” is dangerous – it is that it is un-necessarily dangerous. It is almost as if the genre only got press because it was so dangerous.
The caption under one of the pictures read as follows: “My scariest moment happened just after I took this shot ... There was a moment when I thought, ‘This is it, I'm not going to survive.'” This caption really summed up the recklessness of The Star; trying to beautify lack of safety. If we are every going to turn the tide and make an impact on safety culture in Canada, we need to stop praise unnecessary risk. Instead, le
t’s ask ourselves, how do we make Canada a place a safer place to work and live?!